AmeroCurrency.com--Conspiracy Theory Section--25 Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeny

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000)

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided
information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more
Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author's Web site:
<http://www.proparanoid.com>

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be
useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression
of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day
news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation.
Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will
invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and
expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend
to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the
disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives.

The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely
they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought,
threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be
suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of
evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links
are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or
more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links
already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself
key to) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or
weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to
interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken
when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth.
Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a
level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence
for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link
must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one
must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter
of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the
rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally
involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as
truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or
false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in
general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should
the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain
ofevidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must
be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit,
such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people
or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this
process.However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often
easily ledastray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law
enforcement have
NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players
themselves understand the rules of the game.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of
evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to
make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still,
cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including
the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is
fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why
criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist,
only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a
known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of
questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise
demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if
they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would
and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be
supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the
editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In
these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to
cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution
-- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding
board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of
government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo
artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the
concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible
future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often
spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of
discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments
or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher,
or investigative writer. Anything less renders anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in
their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in
exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide
for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops
(psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the latter
freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply
foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in
other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is
the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply
directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some
paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and
a proper response.[examples & response- http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html]

Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use
multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational
sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery.
Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have
reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions
statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not
directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally
used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal
conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it --
especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen,
and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on
side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise
sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless
of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms
mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with
a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such
'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it
a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which
you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either
make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest
charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all
the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary
'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.
Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing',
'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual
deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the
same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent
position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any
answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where
a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism,
reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and
never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the
opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing
issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your
argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and
simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing
sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing
issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof,
contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in
any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be
or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not
be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man
issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent
charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated
with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address
current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original
source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the
facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in
hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of
proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on
your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have
already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for
'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding
the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to
solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more
quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or
with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the
crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime
was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to
address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a
way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of
turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with
companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena
in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and
taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make
them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less
coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their
emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing
on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the
'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public
forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent
to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known
to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid
discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media
or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that
statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and
manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize
sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the
fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert
the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open
discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when
properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand
Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to
subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be
considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but
it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or
influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social
research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address
issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from
sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as
trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from
circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed
entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of
theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially,
emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think
the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and
others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional
disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

(Revised April 2000 - formerly SEVEN Traits)

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input,
generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that,
and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert
knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the
hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing
heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a
commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the
commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new
controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the
particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of
general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish
with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or
teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an
ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for
straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and,
usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they
hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic
discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to
make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.
Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going
out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin --
an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and
unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how
condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or
reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if
responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But
disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect
to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style.
It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a
communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face
conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment,
ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being
thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will
generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how
obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what
others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or
simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true
self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat
'Freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself
and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his
poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a
grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college
degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed
first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the
response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the
government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response.
The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and
watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF
THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed
towards truth.

2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS
CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a
sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to
'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and
fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true
when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with
respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the
same sin.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live
on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a
diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth
incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth
and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we
shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

Government Conspiracy

" We're from the Government--
We're here to help..."

The Rules of Disinformation

"If the impulse
and opportunity
be suffered to
coincide, we well
know that neither
moral nor
religious motives
can be relied on
as an adequate
control."--James
Madison, The
Federalist Papers

AmeroCurrency and AmeroCurrency.com are Trademarks and Services Marks
All Rights Reserved - Copyright © 2006-2008